Contrary to letter writer John Allan's beliefs,
Ontario has never had laws
guaranteeing confidentiality to women who surrendered
their children to adoption. When my daughter
was placed for adoption, I was not offered,
nor did I request, to hide my identity. The
documents I signed reflect this. In
fact, when I found my daughter, I learned that
she already knew her birth-name, my name. So much for confidentiality.

In jurisdictions where adoption disclosure legislation
includes an optional contact veto, there have
been no transgressions of vetoes filed.

Furthermore,
statistics show that few mothers file a veto
and most who are contacted by their lost children are delighted
to be found.

Allan's dire warnings of divorces and suicides
if adoption records are unsealed are fear mongering.

His concerns
about an increase in abortions and a decrease
of available healthy babies for adopters are equally unfounded.
Abortions have not increased in areas with open adoption records.
Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of young fertile women to supply
infertile couples with a baby.

- Louise Slattery
Saint Lazare, Que.

[sidebars/Tor_Star_adoption_disclosure_law_backed.aspx]

Woman convicted of killing 3 kids after custody
battle

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, USA, August 26, 2008

HELSINKI, Finland - A court in Finland has convicted a woman of murdering
her three young children and has given her a life sentence.

The Espoo District Court says Thai-born Yu-Hsiu Fu was found guilty of
strangling her 8-year-old twin daughters and 1-year-old son in her home.

She tried to kill herself afterward.

The verdict on Tuesday says the 41-year-old woman was found to be of
sound mind at the time of the murders.

Court papers show the murders were preceded by a bitter custody battle
with her Finnish husband who was living separately from her at the time
of the murders.

A life sentence in Finland mean convicts usually serve at least 11 years
in prison.

By targeting protesters for searches and not letting them proceed,
York Police violated Charter rights in June 2010, the appeals court
decides.

Paul Figueiras stands at the entrance to St.
Andrew's Church on King St. W., near where he was
stopped by a York Region police officer on June 27,
2010, who demanded that he submit to a search and
told him, "This ain't Canada right now. ... There is
no civil rights in this area." Nearly five years
later Figueiras has found vindication in an appeal
court decision saying his Charter rights had been
violated.

In a decision being hailed as a victory for civil
liberties, the Court of Appeal has ruled that a group of
G20 demonstrators who were prevented from approaching
the security fence unless they submitted to a search had
their Charter rights violated.

“It’s a victory for peaceful demonstrators,” said Kiel
Ardal, one of the lawyers who argued the case. “We hope
that police change their behaviour because of this
ruling.”

The altercation between protester Paul Figueiras and a
group of York Region police on June 27, 2010, gained
notoriety thanks to a video posted to YouTube in which
Sgt. Mark Charlebois says: “This ain’t Canada right now
… There is no civil rights here in this area.”

Sgt. Mark Charlebois, left,
found guilty of violating Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of Canada

“The actions taken by Sgt. Charlebois and his team were
not reasonably necessary and had little, if any, impact
in reducing threats to public safety, imminent or
otherwise,” wrote Justice Paul Rouleau, on behalf of
justices Katherine van Rensburg and Gladys Pardu. “The
respondents violated Mr. Figueiras’s common law right to
travel unimpeded on a public highway, and … they also
violated his Charter right to freedom of expression.”

On the Sunday of the G20 weekend in June 2010 — the day
after “Black Bloc” protesters smashed windows and set
police cars on fire — Figueiras and a group of friends
headed downtown with a sign and pamphlets advocating
veganism and animal rights. They were stopped by a group
of York Region Police officers at the corner of King St.
W. and University Ave. and told that they could not
proceed unless they allowed their bags to be searched.

When Figueiras declined, the commanding officer,
Charlebois, put his arm around him and said: “You don’t
get a choice.”

Charlebois then pushed Figueiras away and told him to
“get moving.”

For this, the judges ruled that Charlebois had also
committed battery.

Even though it took almost five years to obtain,
Figueiras says the ruling was worth the wait.

“This case is not just about my rights; it’s about the
rights of all Canadians,” he said. The police “abused
their powers to intimidate and to bully peaceful
demonstrators during the (G20) summit, and I just wanted
to do something to try and ensure that these types of
abuses don’t happen again.”

While the decision’s significance shouldn’t be
overstated because it was based heavily on context, it
still constitutes a victory for individual liberties in
Canada, said Osgoode Law School professor Alan Young.

“In the last 20 years, there’s been a gradual increase
in police powers … This is a little bit of a retreat and
more reflective of a fundamental view of what our rights
are,” said Young, who wasn’t involved in the case. “Just
because you have security concerns doesn’t mean you can
infringe upon people’s Charter rights.”

The Court of Appeal judges ruled that Charlebois wasn’t
acting under orders and had arbitrarily decided that
suspected demonstrators were to be searched.

The previous Superior Court ruling had compared the
situation to the searches conducted at airports or
courthouses. However, the Appeal Court judges disagreed,
because Charlebois didn’t search everyone and only
targeted protesters.

“Stops that target an identifiable group must be
‘carefully scrutinized’ … The basis for targeting
would-be demonstrators, as a group, is weak and does
not, in my view, rise to the level of reasonable
suspicion,” Rouleau ruled, adding: “We want to be safe,
but we need to be free.”

While Supt. Mark Fenton awaits the results of his
discipline hearing, few police officers have been held
accountable for the mass arrests and “kettling” during
the G20.

Ontario Government
Eliminating Fees On All International Adoptions

January 13, 2005

TORONTO, Ontario “ The McGuinty government
is easing the financial burden on Ontarians
who want to adopt a child from another country,
Minister of Children and Youth Services Dr.
Marie Bountrogianni announced today. More ..